I'll always support people's rights to choose what kind of protection they want to wear, however after my spill, I'll always wear a full face helmet... Wrecked a sports bike doing about 50 on a mountain highway, spill ripped through my armored glove and broke two fingers, one of which required pins and several months of PT. Helmet saved my life though. Rolled off the bike and slapped the back of my head on the asphalt, without the helmet I would be dead for sure.

Like I said, I'll always support individual rights to wear/not wear gear, but I always advocate for Full gear on every ride.

...Like I said, I'll always support individual rights to wear/not wear gear, but I always advocate for Full gear on every ride.

..Glad you made it through that Okay..

Like you say.. It's always gonna be nicer than not to have the option..

There are guys and gals on this forum who wouldn't ride if they had to look like me.. And.. As I see it.. Those types of people ..y'know. THOSE "Types" (with no style) - Well.. They have the right to ride and feel comfortable on two wheels too ..

Don't mind paying a-little more for my insurance if that's what it takes.

I've gone helmet-less a few times but regardless of the law; for me (it's a common sense, no-brainer) I'm safer wearing a helmet.....

Phil

I read through that 1st article. They do the same sleazy tricks that other researchers do when they are using scare tactics. FIRST, They only report risks and not benefits. Life is all about balancing the risk and benefit. If bungee jumping offered no thrill, people would not increase their risk and do it. Riding free offers tremendous benefit to those who choose it. Lighter head, wind, photo oops, coolness, ease, whatever the rider wants to call it.

SECOND. They report fatalities without reference to NON - fatalities. Helmet or no helmet, riding a motorcycle in Michigan is extremely safe. Roughly 98.5% of registered riders just ride on their merry way. 1.5% or so give up the ghost. Those are great odds. I'll take a 1.5% risk of death for the benefit of riding. So Hemet use may change that 1.5% risk to only 1.49% or whatever but it's trivial compared to the near 99%of riders who don't meet Mr Mahem.

I've gone helmet-less a few times but regardless of the law; for me (it's a common sense, no-brainer) I'm safer wearing a helmet.....

Phil

Faulty studies as pointed out Phil. There is no proof that the lack of a helmet caused the deaths. Even if they said person x died form head trauma and they weren't wearing helmet, doesn't mean they couldn't have also died from head trauma if they were wearing a helmet. Plus they have no way of knowing how many riders actually rode during that time period. It could have been hundreds or thousands more riders on the road in that year.

If you don't want to wear a helmet and your state doesn't require it...then don't wear one. But please God...don't try and justify your actions by what ifing the crash data...or what has alway been COMMON SENSE knowledge...which is having a protective helmet over your brain will help you survive should you bump your noggin. No.. crash data doesn't contain every piece of information we wish it did so we could really say helmets are safer or not...but did you need an infrared heat gauge with triple flux capacitors to know the stove was hot...or was it just common sense? I don't need crash data to tell me that a helmet is safer than no helmet...or that a full face is better than a half helmet...I know this already. And I for one would not want to live with myself if someone died or became a vegetable because I talked them out of wearing a helmet for my own stupid anti helmet propaganda reasons. So in closing...I am pro choice...I think it should be an option....but don't try and say helmets dont help, or gun locks don't protect children, or condoms are black magic, or democrats are good for this country....all equally ridiculous statements in my book ??

If you don't want to wear a helmet and your state doesn't require it...then don't wear one. But please God...don't try and justify your actions by what ifing the crash data...or what has alway been COMMON SENSE knowledge...which is having a protective helmet over your brain will help you survive should you bump your noggin. No.. crash data doesn't contain every piece of information we wish it did so we could really say helmets are safer or not...but did you need an infrared heat gauge with triple flux capacitors to know the stove was hot...or was it just common sense? I don't need crash data to tell me that a helmet is safer than no helmet...or that a full face is better than a half helmet...I know this already. And I for one would not want to live with myself if someone died or became a vegetable because I talked them out of wearing a helmet for my own stupid anti helmet propaganda reasons. So in closing...I am pro choice...I think it should be an option....but don't try and say helmets dont help, or gun locks don't protect children, or condoms are black magic, or democrats are good for this country....all equally ridiculous statements in my book ??

Well said!
I am also pro choice and have this discussion with my brother on a regular basis.
I choose to were a helmet he chooses not to. We ride together all the time me with a helmet and leather him with a bathing suit, flip flops and a very small non-DOT approved little skull cap.
Different stroke for different folks.
Bottom line, I'm all for freedom of choice.

Faulty studies as pointed out Phil. There is no proof that the lack of a helmet caused the deaths. Even if they said person x died form head trauma and they weren't wearing helmet, doesn't mean they couldn't have also died from head trauma if they were wearing a helmet. Plus they have no way of knowing how many riders actually rode during that time period. It could have been hundreds or thousands more riders on the road in that year.

You gotta apply a little logic when it comes to helmets.. What is it and how does it protect you? That kinda thing.

If you came off your bike at 75mph and were lucky enough to slide with no major impacts, then a helmet WOULD protect you from sliding damage, it would also protect your head against punctures from sliding over stones 1" or less, the helmet would be punctured, not your head..

If you hit something at 75mph. Completely different ballgame.. You are gonna be pushing up roses. The body can't withstand that kind of trauma, your brain would swell, organs would burst, your neck would break, that kinda thing..

Even at 35mph, you hit something head on.. Other than Possibly - Possibly - avoiding a major skull compression - A helmet isn't going to save you.. Because your brain is going to swell and spinal injuries are almost guaranteed (in head on situations).

Glancing blows.. A helmet might help more regarding fractures and help prevent loss of bits of your face, but that brain is still gonna be ping-ponging around inside your skull which is going to do damage to some degree..

Falling off your bike and smacking your head on the concrete? MMmm.. You'll likely have a headache, but almost certainly, no fractures...

Helmets aren't magic.. They offer a realistic amount of protection and are effective at preventing certain injuries in some situations.. But I think a lot of people see them as security against death on a bike..

I think that's how helmets are sold by statistics.

Me? ..No.. .. Unfortunately not..

I see them as protection against sliding damage, against small puncture injuries. I see them as a help to prevent fractures in low impact situations, a good helmet will keep your head streamlined which reduces fatigue at higher speeds, keeps the bugs and road bees from beating you up too bad over the long haul... Not much more than that.

But.. Realistically.. If you come off your bike.. I would be relying more on luck than a helmet to save you.

I never said helmets don't protect. States are using faulty, directed studies to justify helmet laws. I wonder if there was ever a study done on fractures necks due to helmets.

True, I think all statistics are quoted to serve that which a statistician would seek to prove..

But, Neck damage? I have heard that one too.. Who really knows that, or could prove that one way or another?

The same faulty math would need to apply..

It's probably more likely to PROVE that the use of helmets prevent loss of profit to emergency rooms.. As a helmet might prevent more superficial injuries that go unpaid after a person is patched up.

But, Motorcycle accidents - every-single last one of them, is different.. Because a person's body is being flung around like a rag doll and there's impacts here, there, and everywhere..

It's not crash dummy time, where the dummy hits the object the same way under the same angle, at the same speeds every-single time. So I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the use of helmets save lives..

I think a person can apply a little logic and say that they Can Help to prevent Some Injuries under Certain Circumstances..

But yes.. I wholly agree.. Due to the variations in what happens when any motorcyclist is bouncing off the road's surface, you couldn't possibly say that helmets save lives..

You could imagine it to be true.. But that's not proving it.. I can't see how that could be even remotely possible to prove. Just too many variations in impact data to properly ascertain.

So.. Most definitely then, a helmet should be thing of choice.. Should be the same choice as choosing to wear an armored jacket, pants or gloves (for example)..

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Shadow Forums : Shadow Motorcycle Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.